View Single Post
  #12  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:06 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I'm not going to laugh at that...(even though I want to).

But I really do want to here how and why and under what kind of reasoning can we justify looking at this film as the same thread that we began with 40 years ago?
I get it...it's a different person telling the story but Trek has had many many different people tell the stories but since it has been mostly visual does not the visual of this film confirm that there is a deviation?

Some like to bring up the Sherlock Holmes books as having details that don't quite sync with the others before. Apparently he was unconcerned with the consistency but this is different. This is eposodic story telling. If you say Spock wore blue and later a different author says he wore red. Does that not cause a bit of confusion. When the author says they drove boats and later they were driving on cars...

It just seems to break up the path the story is taking us one.
That's why I look at the significant changes of this movie and quickly realize that I don't need to get all huffy and puffy like a riled rooster about details that aren't exactly right...the ship, the bridge, they're background stories.....

Now I'd like to know why other are dead set to fit this movie into canon. I'm sure the events will be canon but not everything will fit with the continuity of what we know they did before...and we know, that they know, that they couldn't have done it like they could have but they didn't and now that we know that they didn't it seems to imply that the details weren't the important issue. The story and it's sucess seemed to be the target...

And I can only hope that's true.
__________________

Reply With Quote